[OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

Kate Chapman kate at maploser.com
Wed Jan 16 12:21:22 GMT 2013


Alex,

While I agree with the principal that the restrictions on geocoding
are preventing groups from joining the OSM community, I don't think
changing the insubstantial clause is the way to fix the issue. The
clause is there for just that insubstantial use, to make it high
enough to allow geocoding in the way that is desired things would no
longer be insubstantial.

Having an exception to the license however a big undertaking I think
is the correct way to approach things.

-Kate

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>
> Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth:
>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
>>>> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use
>>>> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of
>>>> the incompatibility of the two licenses.
>>>> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the
>>>> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the
>>>> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because
>>>> of the incompatibility of licenses.
>>> With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial
>>> extract
>>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline)
>>> your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts
>>> would normally be considered derivative databases and would require
>>> release of the underlying data with the ODbL.
>> The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)).
>
> As you say we have had this discussion before. The insubstantial
> guideline is there to determine what  trivial, inconsequential usage of
> the data is. On the one hand I suspect that if we (though some kind of
> consultation process) raise the numbers, it is never going to be enough
> (10'000, 10'000'000?). On the other hand raising the number at one point
> essentially creates a new (CC0) licence. We have both a ethical
> fiduciary duty to respect the wishes of the part of the community that
> wants strong share a like (there are reasons to believe that this is
> large group) and a contractual one (contributor terms) to follow due
> process for a licence change.
>
> It would not be out of the question to add a specific "geo-coding"
> licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to
> distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking
> and up to now nobody has stepped forward  and taken ownership of the issue.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



More information about the legal-talk mailing list